John Prescott: On 28 November 2004, I was in Sydney on official business to discuss the legacy of the Olympic Games and the regeneration of the former Olympic sites. I visited the Star City casino, which is part of a major waterfront regeneration scheme in the city that I discussed with the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr. I was accompanied by a number of officials, including my permanent secretary and the chief executive of English Partnerships. I have not visited any other casinos.

John Prescott: As a Minister, I have no specific role in relation to gambling or planning, but as a parliamentarian I have exactly the same say as Opposition Members, because—as I have explained—in this House they will have the final say on the location of any casinos. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for gambling policy, and the Department for Communities and Local Government is responsible for planning policy.

Stephen Pound: May I tell my right hon. Friend that, in the London borough of Ealing, which for 12 years enjoyed the wise and sagacious leadership of a Labour council and is now temporarily in the hands of the Tories, 10 per cent. of the looked-after children go on to university—the highest level anywhere in England and Wales? May I invite her to visit Ealing, despite its current political complexion, to see how we have achieved that excellent result?

Paddy Tipping: With the Chinese economy growing by 13 per cent. a year and reports that a new coal-fired power station is being opened every fortnight in China, it is a major source of carbon pollution. How confident is the Deputy Prime Minister about involving China in a successful outcome, post-Kyoto?

Oliver Heald: Why does the Deputy Prime Minister feel he could give useful advice about Kyoto to the Chinese, given his own failed environmental policies at home: his failed pledge to ensure that fewer car journeys take place and his failed integrated transport system, and his Strategic Rail Authority was so bad that it was immediately scrapped by his successor? Everything that he does goes wrong. Does not China deserve better?

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend accept that despite the chaff from the Opposition, his well known and highly regarded leadership internationally on this issue is well respected? Will he accept that if he can advise China on how to achieve a balance between economic growth and sustainable environmental policies, it would be a major step forward and one that Labour Members would really appreciate?

James Duddridge: It wasn't the mayor.

John Prescott: The Tory leader in Southend said:
	"There wasn't any pressure put on us".
	I accept that man's statement and that is exactly what happened. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in casino policy himself. I understand that his constituency party in Rochford and Southend, East receives funding from a company that wants to build a £15 million casino and hotel complex in Southend.

James Duddridge: That's a lie.

John Prescott: It sounds to me as if the hon. Gentleman is a busted flush—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]

Clive Efford: Whether there will be a casino at the dome or not, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he is doing to bring about the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. I take the same view as the former Conservative mayoral candidate for London, who when asked on Radio 5 whether my right hon. Friend should have met with Anschutz said that if he had not, he would not have been doing his job properly. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to bring about the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula and the job opportunities for my constituents.

Peter Bone: The citizens advice bureau in Rushton, the second town in the Wellingborough constituency, was forced to close recently, which meant that people in desperate need of advice were left without an advice centre. It appears that the Government make no contribution to local citizens advice bureaux, but will they look at that again?

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the House will join me in mourning the loss of our late colleague, Kevin Hughes, who died on Sunday from motor neurone disease. We will remember Kevin as a thoroughly decent human being: loyal, immensely likeable—a man who showed the same high courage as he approached the end as he had shown throughout his life in politics. We send our deepest sympathy to Lynda and her family.
	I am also sure that the House will join me in offering our condolences to the family of Corporal John Cosby, who died in Iraq at the weekend. Our sympathy and prayers are with them at this difficult time. In the last 24 hours, we have once again had reason to be grateful for the professionalism of our forces, as we have seen HMS Gloucester evacuate British citizens from Beirut.
	Mr. Speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Tony Blair: Yes, I certainly give my congratulations to everyone at Hoylake, and on all that they have done to bring the open there. I wish everyone the best of luck.

Tony Blair: As a result of representations made by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, it will not be possible to proceed with the mandatory home condition report. However, we will of course have to proceed with the energy performance certificate, since that is now required by European Union legislation. We will obviously wait until the pilots have reported to see what more we can do to make sure that we do not end up in a situation—this is the reason for the home improvement packs—of spending round about £1 million a day, as ordinary consumers are at the moment, on abortive house sales. It was entirely sensible, because of the energy performance certificate, to go down this route, but as a result of the representations of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, we are going to have to change that.

Tony Blair: I will not confirm that at all. It is extremely important to make sure that we extract the maximum gain we can when planning goes through because it is important that we be able to invest the maximum amount of money in housing.
	Since we are talking about housing, the most important thing for home owners in this country is that interest rates are half what they were in the Tory years. As he is someone who worked at the Treasury when mortgage repossession was going on, I do not think we will take lessons on housing from the right hon. Gentleman.

Tony Blair: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right; it is best not to talk about Opposition policies because they are better for an Opposition than a Government. But let me just tell the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that we will continue with policies for a strong economy, not the boom and bust of the Tory years, and for investment in our health service and education; and with family-friendly policies, and investment in Sure Start, the new deal and lifting pensioners out of poverty. We will continue with the policies that have made this country stronger, fairer and better—not those that brought us 18 years of Conservative misrule.

Tony Blair: Let me repeat what I said yesterday. It is important that Israel's response is proportionate and does its best to minimise civilian casualties, but it would stop now if the soldiers who were kidnapped—wrongly, when Hezbollah crossed the United Nations blue line—were released. It would stop if the rockets stopped coming into Haifa, deliberately to kill innocent civilians. If those two things happened, I promise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I will be the first to say that Israel should halt its operations.

John Redwood: Can the Prime Minister explain why it is that since the Labour Government took over, Ireland has grown four times as quickly as Scotland? Does that not mean that there is not only a problem of disloyalty in No. 11 but a problem of incompetence?

Tony Blair: You see, there is a problem with the negotiated solution to this. After all, it is now clear that everyone wants a two-state solution, and the road map is there and agreed by the whole of the Quartet, including the European Union, the UN, Russia and America, obviously. This problem is not being held back by America or by anyone's intransigence and refusal to negotiate; it is being held back by the fact that we cannot even begin the essential preconditions for the road map to exist properly. Those essential preconditions are about security and about ensuring that, for example, the thing that sparked everything on Gaza, which was to do with the kidnap of an Israeli soldier, and other such things stop.
	I share my right hon. Friend's concern. I pushed for the adoption of the road map. I pushed for a two-state solution. But in the end the only negotiated way through this is by everyone committing themselves to exclusively peaceful, democratic means, and that has to hold on both sides of the border—not just on the Israeli side but also on the Palestinian side.

Tony Blair: The UK Government are currently considering the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking agreed last year. At present only one country, Moldova, has ratified that convention, but let me be clear that we are determined to tackle human trafficking. The police have set up the UK Human Trafficking Centre to continue the fight against that crime, and Operation Pentameter resulted in over 150 arrests and the rescue of 75 trafficking victims.

Shona McIsaac: What advice would my right hon. Friend give a Member of Parliament who voted against the introduction of two weeks' paid paternity leave, who voted against extending maternity leave to 26 weeks, and who voted against the request for flexible working? Would that advice include the words, "On your bike, Dave"?

Robert Goodwill: I know that the Prime Minister is a big supporter of the tourist industry. Has he considered taking his holiday this year in Scarborough? I am sure he will be interested to know that many people who visit Scarborough as tourists subsequently decide to make it their permanent retirement home.

Tony Blair: I know the hon. Gentleman will continue to make representations on the matter, but I point out to him that it is not a question of management and people being appointed to the board. It is a question of ensuring that however much money we put into the national health service—we have put in vast additional sums that have reduced waiting times, reduced waiting lists, reduced waits for treatment such as cardiac care, and made sure that we are cutting the number of people dying from diseases such as cancer and heart disease—although it has had a huge impact, every single trust has to live within its means. Sometimes trusts have to reconfigure services, but I do not believe that they will do so to the detriment of clinical management, clinical care or patient care in communities.

John Reid: I should like to make a statement about our plans for transforming the Home Office. I have today placed in the Library a copy of a reform action plan which gives details of the changes that we intend to make.
	All political change should start with values and objectives. The Home Office exists to protect the key elements of civilised society: to reduce fear and increase security, from global terrorism to local cohesion in our streets and communities, and from justice and fairness to the protection of opportunities to live life in security. However, the context in which we seek to apply those values is changing faster than ever before, and changing fundamentally, creating new and different challenges for the future.
	In the past 15 years, we have seen no less than seismic geopolitical changes, ranging from the global to the local. Globally, the old cold war had frozen the world into relative immobility. States were frozen, ethnic tensions and religious extremism was repressed, borders were inviolable, and peoples were largely static. The end of the cold war brought a torrent of new problems and, above all, the challenge of international mobility on a hitherto unimaginable scale. We have seen unprecedented levels of migration, with the movement of more than 200 million people in 2005, the development of international terrorism— [ Interruption. ] That is hardly a laughing matter. We have also seen the growth of global and organised crime.
	Moving from the global to the local, relative immobility has given way to social and geographic mobility, whereby the old group allegiances, extended family relationships and inherited patterns of voting and religious observance have broken down, and with them the old forms of community cohesion. Unlike most other Government Departments, we find that in this changing context many of the people whom the Home Office is trying to deal with—prisoners, criminals, and illegal immigrants—see it as their primary objective not to co-operate with the Government but to resist our authority and evade our control.
	In the face of those challenges, the Home Office has been in a process of change and reform for some years. The Department now has a more streamlined focus as a result of some of our responsibilities being transferred to other Departments. I give credit to my predecessors and the civil servants who worked with them for facing those challenges. They took a system that was designed before the cold war and improved it in three important ways: through additional resources, improvements in technology and legislative and practical solutions.
	Those improvements have led to notable successes in key matters. Crime is down significantly—the chance of being a victim of crime in this country is the lowest since 1981. We have record numbers of police and an additional 6,300 community support officers on the streets. Asylum applications are now tackled in two months, as opposed to 22 months under the previous Government. The UK Passport Service, which was failing just a few years ago, now regularly tops customer service polls, beating some leading private sector organisations. It is a shining example of transformation, and what can be achieved.
	However, the underlying systems and practices for dealing with those issues have not changed sufficiently. Many of the fundamentals that underlie the systems in the Home Office were designed for a pre-cold war era. In the face of the huge challenges that I outlined earlier, we have now reached the limit of what can be achieved without a fundamental overhaul. The Home Office capability review, which is published today, strongly reinforces those views.
	Some of the inadequacies have surfaced recently—in co-ordination, administration and accounts. In co-ordination, the House knows only too well—I do not have to rehearse the matter—how the release of foreign prisoners challenged systems across the Home Office and the criminal justice system, and found them wanting.
	In administration, the House knows that, for example, the National Audit Office last year suggested that 283,000 unsuccessful asylum applicants might still be here—excluding dependants and those who claimed asylum before 1994 and after 2004—reflecting the difficulties of successive Governments in removing failed asylum seekers. That is reflected in the immigration and nationality directorate's case load of around 400,000 to 450,000 electronic and paper records, which, as hon. Members also know, are riddled with duplication and errors, and include cases of individuals who have since died or left the country, or are now EU citizens.
	As for accounts, the House knows that the Home Office's resource accounts for 2004-05 were disclaimed by the National Audit Office. We have sought to remedy those individual instances. I have today set out in a written ministerial statement, through my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, our plans to improve the way in which we deal with foreign national prisoners. We will tackle the case load in the IND with the aim of clearing it—not in 25 years, as has been suggested, but in five or less. We will put our books in order. However, as today's capability review shows, we need to go much further in general and fundamental reform.
	For all those reasons, I am today setting out plans for an ambitious set of reforms across the Department. They are outlined in the document that we published today, and I shall highlight some of them. We will sharpen the Home Office's focus on its core purpose of protecting the public through the six key priorities set out in today's plan. We will establish a new top team with a reshaped Home Office board and 15 immediate changes at director level—that is more than a quarter of all directors.
	We will reshape radically the structure of the Home Office, with a major shift in responsibility and resource to the front line. We will fulfil our commitment to reduce the total size of Home Office strategic and operational headquarters by 30 per cent. by 2008—and today I can also tell hon. Members that I am making a commitment to a further reduction of 10 per cent. in headquarters staff by 2010.
	The cumulative effect of these changes will be to reduce the size of the headquarters of the Home Office and its agencies from 9,200 in 2004 to 6,500 in 2008 and to 5,900 by 2010. These changes will mark the biggest shift from the centre to the front line in the Home Office's history. We will thereby save £115 million a year by 2010 in HQ costs, which we will invest in improving front-line services.
	We will go further by establishing the immigration and nationality directorate as an executive agency of the Home Office—a shadow agency will be in place by April 2007—with strong accountability arrangements. I shall give more details of this in the next few days. We will establish clear performance frameworks for the operational services of the Home Office—the immigration and nationality directorate, the National Offender Management Service, and the identity and passport service—and hold the heads of those services accountable for operational performance. The National Offender Management Service headquarters will be focused on the job of commissioning high-quality services for managing offenders and of driving up the performance of the probation and prison services. As a result, the headquarters of NOMS will get progressively smaller. We will reduce it by 50 per cent. by 2010.
	We will develop a renewed contract between Ministers and officials, clarifying respective roles and expectations in relation to policy, strategic decisions, operational delivery and management. We will seek to reduce further the bureaucratic burden on the police and other partners in tackling crime, by implementing simpler performance arrangements for policing crime and drugs.
	We are also launching today a radical reform programme in the Home Office, with seven strands of change designed to transform the culture, skills, systems, processes and data of the Department. Today we have set out a clear action plan to deliver this reform, and more. By September, we will develop a full implementation programme. An external audit of progress will be conducted in December and annually thereafter. In the next few days, we will supplement today's plan with two further sets of proposals: on rebalancing the criminal justice system and on reforming our immigration and nationality directorate.
	We are determined to deliver a confidently led and well managed Home Office which delivers high-quality services to protect the public and better meets their expectations, and which builds through transformation on the improvements that have been achieved so far. I would like to thank my predecessors, my Ministers and my senior officials for all the work that has already been put into the development of the Home Office and into our new plans.
	I stress to the House the fact that we are not starting from year zero, and that we do not expect perfection at the end of the process. This is the start of a long-term programme for transforming the fundamental systems of the Home Office. All those involved—Ministers, directors and staff—know the extent of the challenge, and that this will not be accomplished overnight. However, we are committed to making early progress to demonstrate our seriousness to the public and to our stakeholders and staff. The fundamental change that we are seeking will require determination and, above all, endurance. This is the unglamorous hard work of delivering good government. That is now the task ahead, and I commend the plan to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement, much of which we agree with. We wonder, however, why it has taken 10 years for some of these lessons to be learned. I was quite surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking—which I did not see in the original statement—to clear up in five years the backlog that the Home Office faces. Working on today's numbers, that implies that it will be deporting a net figure of 80,000 people a year, and I would be interested to hear the Home Secretary confirm that that is the case.
	In the past 12 weeks, we have witnessed a serial catastrophe in the Home Office, with daily disclosures of massive failures of policy. The issues have included the release of foreign prisoners, murderers on probation, sex-for-visas scandals, dangerous prisoners being put into open prisons, hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers, and massive numbers of illegal immigrants.
	This has been a spectacular serial failure of government, the like of which has not been seen in modern times in this country. Each and every failure that we have talked about in the past 12 weeks has serious implications for ordinary decent British citizens. At the very least, the Government have wasted hard-earned taxpayers' money and put excessive pressure on housing and public services. At worst, they have threatened public safety and even, in some cases, national security.
	We need to understand why that has happened; the wrong analysis of the problem will lead to the wrong conclusion. The Home Secretary puts it down to the end of the cold war, and with it the rise in asylum seekers and other threats. But that does not explain why Britain, which is further away from the failed states than any other European state—except Ireland—and which is an island and therefore harder to get into, with borders that are easier to control, has had the second highest number of asylum applicants in the world in the past five years.
	The reason is simple. The new Labour Government—I see that the previous Home Secretary but two is on the Treasury Bench—repealed Conservative laws allowing us to send people straight back to safe countries on the so-called white list. They terminated Conservative welfare arrangements designed to deter economic migrants, and failed to negotiate a continuation of the right to return asylum seekers to France. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding. They later tried to reinstate some of those laws, but too late. In the following five years, more than a quarter of a million failed asylum seekers—failed asylum seekers, not real asylum seekers—tried to enter Britain, with almost 90,000 in one year alone. That, along with political decisions to increase net immigration by nearly 200,000 a year and not to strengthen our borders, is why the immigration and nationality directorate was overwhelmed.
	Of course there have been failures of management, but there have been much bigger failures of political leadership. The same is true elsewhere in the Home Office. We have seen the disaster over foreign prisoners, the debacle over putting dangerous prisoners in open prisons, and the catastrophe of murderers released after a 25-minute telephone call and going on to murder innocent people. All those came from the same cause—a political decision not to build enough prison places.
	The Government's own review showed that they needed 100,000 prison places by 2010. Even after the 8,000 new places that I understand the Home Secretary will announce tomorrow, they will still have less than 90,000 places by 2012. Again, there are failures of management, but in a system put under intolerable pressure by failures of political leadership. We could go on. We have a police force so overburdened with central targets and politically correct red tape that its detection rates dropped to an all-time low two years ago. As a result, violent crime is spiralling out of control, as we will no doubt hear tomorrow when the crime figures come out, putting extra pressure on the police, the courts, the prisons and the Home Office.
	Of course, Ministers themselves have put intolerable pressure on the Home Office. Since 1997 there have been more than 1,300 new regulations, many hundreds of initiatives and over 50 major Home Office Bills—more than the total number of Criminal Justice Bills in the previous century. Some of those Bills were useless—not in my opinion, but in the Government's. In the case of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, 110 of its provisions never came into force. Seventeen more were repealed before they could come into force, and another 39 were repealed after they came into force. That is by no means the only example; there are many others. Massive amounts of work were piled on to the Home Office, for no use whatever.
	This is not a Department that is impossible to run. Since 1997, as the Home Secretary mentioned in his statement, it has given up responsibility for 24 policy areas. It has less to do in straight policy terms than it had. Under the burdens of a target-driven, red tape-driven, bureaucratic, top-heavy approach pursued by this Government, however, its central staffing has doubled—and is it not revealing that the number of press officers has trebled ?
	It is true that some of the Home Secretary's proposals have merit. For example, the agency proposals for the IND—I think that I disagree with my ex-leader on this—may improve some aspects of its management. It may, however, make communication and co-operation with other parts of the Home Office more difficult, so none of these things come free. It will certainly not absolve Ministers of responsibility for effectiveness and delivery.
	The main issue is that the Home Office is a Department in severe crisis, as a direct result of Government policy. It is no hyperbole to say that the crisis is the biggest faced by a Department in modern times. The failures are multiple and massive, and will have a serious impact on the public. We all hope that the Home Secretary's measures succeed. Even if they do, however, they are unlikely to resolve problems of the size that his Department faces. And whatever they do, they will not allow him to sweep a political problem under a bureaucratic carpet.

John Reid: My hon. Friend made some of those points recently in an Adjournment debate, the report of which I read with interest. I have a degree of sympathy with what he has said, but I hope he understands that the aim of those of us who talk of providing a fair and effective system of managed migration is partly, at least, to ensure that when genuine cases such as those that he mentioned arise, everyone in society accepts that fair and genuine decisions have been made. The problem at the moment—with so many unknowns, so many illegal immigrants and a system that so many people feel is not fair and effective on the immigration side and not balanced in favour of the law-abiding majority on the criminal justice side—is that the legitimacy of taking decisions gets undermined, but that is the balance that we are trying to strike.

John Reid: We have called it a renewed contract. My understanding, although I am not a constitutional historian, has always been that general responsibility for policy and strategic leadership lies with elected Members and Ministers, while responsibility for the detailed minutiae of operational work lies with officials—in the same way that advisers advise, but Ministers decide. It has at least been perceived and may have been the case in reality over recent years that Ministers can get involved in micro-managing operations to the detriment of the strategic whole. That is why we are trying to re-establish the relationship. As so often in other matters, the contract will be public, but this does not have the glamour of a contract signed by football players; it is an attempt to re-establish balance in the relationship between Ministers and officials.

John Reid: We can try to do that by simplifying the law. Much of the detail that my hon. Friend seeks I will, if I am allowed, elaborate on a future occasion. As I have said, my officials have been working very hard on two other sets of proposals: one is about rebalancing the criminal justice system and the other relates to the specifics of the IND. One thing that we certainly should do is listen carefully to what those with experience, either as constituency MPs or former Ministers, have to say. I think that I am correct in saying that in the last 24 hours my hon. Friend has met my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality to discuss the matter, and we are always willing to discuss it further.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to forbid the sale, manufacture, hire, loan or importation of sharpened samurai swords; and for connected purposes.
	The recent knife amnesty has reminded us of just how many knives and other bladed weapons are in circulation in our communities. Nearly 90,000 weapons were handed in to police and, in virtually every local or regional news story that I have read, samurai swords are mentioned as having been deposited at police stations during the amnesty. It is a sad fact that there is an increasing number of these lethal weapons out on our streets, and ease of supply is a significant factor.
	Too many families and communities have suffered the appalling consequences arising from the use of samurai swords. In my own area in and around Hornchurch, we have seen at least three serious incidents. In one, a man's hand was severed, and another involved a serious assault. In the third incident, mothers and toddlers were forced to flee a children's play site when someone started wielding a sword in the area where the youngsters were playing.
	I wish that I could say that those were isolated incidents. However, from a brief examination of some of the reported attacks that have taken place this year alone, it is clear to me that samurai swords are being used increasingly in violent crime up and down the country. The following extracts from stories in the past few months give some feel of the nature of the incidents involving the use of samurai swords:
	"Two gang members have been found guilty of murdering a builder with a samurai sword at a pub in Newport".
	"Police in County Durham have released the name of a woman who died after she was stabbed with a samurai sword and then run over by a car".
	"A teenage thug who nearly killed a man when he sliced through his chest with a samurai sword is facing years in jail. The victim's heart stopped twice on the operating table as surgeons battled to save his life".
	"A robber who threatened to behead a hotel porter with a samurai sword has been jailed for seven years".
	"A twenty six year old man has appeared in court charged with the murder of a man who was stabbed with a samurai sword in Corby."
	Those are just a few examples, but each case highlights the tragic consequences when these weapons are used. I have little doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to provide many other examples.
	There is also a disturbing link between samurai swords and gang culture. It has been suggested by some that obtaining a samurai sword is almost becoming a rite of passage for criminal gang members. The recent pictures in the national press of 15-year-old Alex Mulumba—thought to be a member of the south London gang "Man Dem Crew"—lying in his hospital bed with a ventilator tube protruding from his mouth after sustaining a single fatal stab wound from a samurai sword say a great deal about the impact that those weapons are having on the streets. A report in the  Daily Mirror from last December summarizes the position well. It said:
	"Police in Plymouth are reporting once incident involving a samurai sword every week. In Middlesbrough they are the 'most attractive weapon' for thugs ahead of guns and knives. A senior Home Office source said, 'They are now the weapon of choice amongst many organised criminals'."
	Yet buying one of those potentially lethal implements could not be easier. People can buy them in shops, in markets, on the internet, and even in car boot sales. As one commentator said:
	"It's as easy as purchasing a lotto ticket."
	Police and trading standards officers are absolutely powerless to do anything about that. Although it is an offence to have a samurai sword in a public place without good reason or lawful authority, it is entirely within the law to sell an item with a blade or point—including a samurai sword—to someone over the age of 16. That seems ludicrous to me, and the consequences of having these dangerous swords out on the streets in criminal hands is increasingly plain to see.
	I have become convinced that the availability and supply of these items is a significant factor. A campaign last autumn by Devon and Cornwall police calling on shops to stop selling samurai swords had a clear impact. Instead of averaging one samurai sword incident a week, the force reported only a single incident during its three-month campaign. The time has come to ensure that that approach is taken across the country and that it is given statutory force through legislation.
	That said, it is important to recognise that many people use or possess samurai swords lawfully and without causing harm to anyone else. The sports of kendo and aikido specifically call for the use of Japanese swords. The original Japanese katana is the sword that is most commonly referred to as a samurai sword, and those traditional items, forged with the highly specialized tamagahane steel, are highly valuable and important cultural and historic items, some of which are considered works of fine art. It is possible to frame legislation in such a way that sales of samurai swords to museums, heritage bodies, martial arts groups, theatre and drama companies and other lawful groups can be protected, while banning the sale of dangerous weapons for criminal use.
	The reference to "sharpened samurai swords" in the text of my proposed Bill is intended to reflect that approach, as a number of samurai swords imported into the UK are made from an aluminium composite that cannot be sharpened to have a cutting edge and therefore would not be capable of being used for the sorts of attacks that I have highlighted.
	If action is required, which I believe it is, the only realistic alternative to prohibiting the sale and importation of samurai swords is some form of licensing scheme. I am persuaded that a general scheme would be costly and bureaucratic and would not reduce the flow of these items into criminal hands. However, licensing of certain groups or organisations may assist the framing of the exemptions that I have highlighted, and I will certainly reflect on that in the drafting of the Bill, should I be granted leave by the House today. The Home Office has said for a long time that it is considering a ban on samurai swords—that was said most recently by the current Home Secretary on 19 June—but we have yet to see a firm commitment actually to introduce legislation to that effect. Although powers are being reserved, it remains uncertain whether those powers will be used. It is for that reason that I seek leave to introduce this Bill.
	There is a clear and increasingly worrying link between gang culture, violent crime and the use of these dangerous implements. Reducing the ease with which such swords are supplied would have a direct impact on taking these potentially deadly weapons off our streets. A ban on the sale, import and manufacture of such items—with appropriate exemptions—is the only practical way of giving effect to my intent. The time to act is now. I hope that the House will take this opportunity to introduce a law that will significantly restrict the sale of these potentially deadly items, and in so doing reduce the number of serious attacks in which samurai swords are used.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by James Brokenshire, Mike Penning, Mr. Lee Scott, Angela Watkinson, Mr. David Jones, Mr. Shailesh Vara, Jeremy Wright, Andrew Rosindell, James Duddridge, Mark Pritchard, Martin Horwood and Mr. David Amess.

Opposition Day [Un-allotted day]

Michael Gove: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am always delighted to hear from a fellow Scot in such debates, and I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman might wish to say about the subject that is actually being discussed this afternoon.
	Despite the Minister's many skills at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, she will not be able to disguise that the central part of HIPs—the keystone around which everything else was constructed—has been demolished. Her decision yesterday to make home condition reports a purely voluntary part of HIPs means that they are now, in effect, a dead letter. After all, who in their right mind will voluntarily wish to pay hundreds of extra pounds for a home condition report, with all its current defects, simply to market their property, when they can go ahead without one? Making the preparation of a home condition report voluntary is like making payment of council tax voluntary—something the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister knows all about. If a Government-mandated levy is no longer obligatory, why should people pay?

Tony Baldry: Does not the hypersensitivity of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) at my pointing out her reading from the Whip's brief demonstrate that the Government are greatly embarrassed? As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is being far too kind to the Minister, and we are ending up with the worst of all possible worlds. The chief executive of the Association of Home Information Pack Providers says that the energy performance certificates will cost £200 each, which is ludicrous price for people to have to pay when moving home, on top of everything else. My hon. Friend is being far too gallant today in his comments to the Minister.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman has gifts of clairvoyance or second sight even greater than those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there was no debate last week on this issue, so there was no opportunity for me to make my views clear. He very helpfully makes a point that we have been trying to make—that the home condition reports that the Government were going to introduce would not have enlightened people as to flood risk, contamination or the threat of radon gas in properties that they might have purchased. As a result, clearly deficient information would have been provided.
	The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said earlier that, in order to operate effectively, markets have to give people adequate or appropriate information. The home condition reports simply would not have done that, as the Council of Mortgage lenders pointed out. As the Prime Minister made clear at the Dispatch Box not two hours ago, that was one of the reasons why the Minister had to execute the U-turn that she did.

Michael Gove: Thank you. One thing I should say is that we are actually debating home information packs, not, as the hon. Lady implied, home improvement packs. There is a clear distinction between the two. Home information packs are the legislation that we are discussing; home improvement packs are merely a solipsism to which the hon. Lady fell prey.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend knows something about buying and selling houses and is absolutely right to say that these packs, had they been introduced, would have failed first-time buyers. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Let me explain; I shall be delighted to do so and shall take as long as hon. Gentlemen want.  [Interruption.] Thank you for that support from a sedentary position.
	The home condition report was supposed to forestall the need for a house buyer to commission a survey or valuation. As designed by the Government, however, it signally failed to provide proper protection for the consumer, and in particular for first-time buyers. In the regulations laid by the Minister, there was no requirement for home information packs to include information on flood risk, natural subsidence, electrical safety, radon gas or land contamination. As designed by the Government, home condition reports were both deficient and dangerous. They would not even have done the job for which they were originally conceived.

Michael Gove: No, thank you.
	Lenders specifically said that an additional survey evaluation would be needed where the mortgage was worth more than 80 per cent. of the value of the house, where the property was distinctive, newly built or a character home, and particularly for flats and conversions. As I am sure hon. Members will not need reminding, there are few first-time buyers whose mortgage is less than 80 per cent. of the value of the home. In addition, they are likely to be disproportionately represented among those buying new-built homes and flats. Ministers spent a great deal of time, and public money, trumpeting the benefit of home condition reports for first-time buyers, but those buyers, who are already hit by the Government's increases in stamp duty, would have faced paying twice, for the home condition report, which would have been added to the cost of the home, and for a lender's survey on top of it. As the party that has constantly championed wider home ownership and put support for first-time buyers at the heart of our policy process, we can only welcome—along with first-time buyers everywhere—the Government's retreat.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"believes that reforms to home buying and selling need to be designed around the interests of consumers; further believes that Home Information Packs (HIPs) will cut waste and duplication and speed up transactions for consumers; applauds the proposed inclusion in HIPs of Energy Performance Certificates which will give buyers and sellers vital information about the energy efficiency of homes and practical suggestions about how to cut fuel bills and carbon emissions; welcomes the Government's intention to carry out further testing of HIPs; and notes that the Government is working with industry to encourage the successful voluntary take-up of Home Condition Reports, retaining the option of a mandatory approach to ensure widespread take-up, and thus maximising the benefit for consumers."
	As always, we heard an entertaining speech from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). It was rather lacking in fact or substance but entertaining nevertheless.
	The hon. Gentleman began his speech with an important issue. He talked about stability in the housing market and in the economy. I think the people of this country will be astonished that the Conservatives are attempting to say that they have concern for housing market reforms because they are concerned about the stability of the economy and the housing market. The Conservatives put interest rates up to 15 per cent. They pushed people out of the housing market and pushed that market into free-fall. The hon. Gentleman talks about helping families on to the housing market ladder, yet his party pushed half a million families off the housing market ladder.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to a report that he knows is based on utterly unfounded assumptions—or at least I hope he knows, given his party's concern and its pretensions to try to regain some economic credibility. He also talked in some detail about his concerns about first-time buyers, and other hon. Members raised that issue. First-time buyers, by definition, are not sellers. They do not have to provide home information packs. In fact, they get the packs for free. They will get the information, for which they currently have to pay, for free. That is why home information packs are good news for first-time buyers and why the Labour party is supporting first-time buyers. Conservative Members say that they are concerned to help first-time buyers, yet they oppose home information packs, they oppose the new homes that we desperately need to help first-time buyers, and they oppose the funding of shared ownership schemes to help people get their first step on the housing ladder.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend say something more about what she means by an area-based roll-out? Are we talking about regions of the country, which has some sense in terms of the digital roll-out? Labour Back Benchers are keen, for environmental reasons, that home information packs be continued with. The people who are trained are vital, so we must make sure that they are supported and that there is a clear process. Perhaps she can say something about what that process will be.

Yvette Cooper: It is important to make clear what we are considering. We want to look at mandatory, voluntary and other approaches to roll-out, but we cannot make a commitment to conduct a mandatory trial, as there are problems with the practicalities of such a trial, and we must undertake further work over the summer. We are looking at existing HIPs—my right hon. Friend is right that many of them have been produced without surveys—and at consumer attitudes and evidence from other countries. He will know that Denmark, for example, has introduced home condition reports in an extremely popular scheme that is similar to HIPs. We want, too, to look at the experience in Australia and other countries. We must therefore undertake detailed and informed work so that we can promote the home condition reports.
	Once HIPs are in place, they can be topped up to become full HIPs with a home condition report. Most people do not have a HIP at all, so their position will be very different if searches are conducted and an energy performance certificate is issued. We want to work with the industry to look at the alternative options in a market-led approach to roll-out. As the amendment makes clear, the Secretary of State believes that the mandatory approach remains on the table.

Yvette Cooper: Given that the Tories opposed the climate change levy and are desperate to get out of any European policy, they do not have a huge amount of credibility on the issue.
	The Opposition parties have always opposed the reform of home buying and selling. They have resisted every aspect of HIPs and energy performance certificates from the beginning, and they object to estate agents having to change the way in which they operate. They have defended the status quo and the vested interests of people who make money from the system, rather than defending the consumer. It is right to conduct detailed debates about the way in which we can make the changes effective, and we must ensure that we learn from the trials and from experience. However, we must ensure, too, that we reform home buying and selling, and the wider housing market to achieve stability, which benefits the economy, as hon. Members said at the outset of our debate. We must build more homes, but Opposition Members have repeatedly rejected that proposal. If they cared about stability in the housing market, they would back our proposals to build 200,000 new homes, but they have failed to do so.

Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the Minister on making such good use of the extra week that she has had to consider the Government's position, as a result of my hon. Friends forcing an Adjournment of the House following the Government's craven and inept use of the extradition rules. It cannot have been easy but eventually, by 5 pm yesterday reality had broken in on the Government. As a Liberal Democrat I was pleased to see that reality came in the form of the Minister's statement, the terms of which were very similar to the amendment that we tabled for today's debate but which, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker has not selected for consideration.
	The Minister set out the key considerations in much the same terms as those in which we see the problems of the home information packs project, as it was. First, there has been a significant delay in issuing the vital regulations determining how the scheme would run. One of my questions to the Minister is whether tomorrow's statutory instrument Committee is still intended to go ahead and consider some of those rules, or whether the rules now have to be withdrawn and reconsidered. Secondly, there has been serious delay in implementing any pilot schemes at all. Thirdly, there are insufficient inspectors to carry out a mandatory scheme on the time scale that the Minister originally set out.
	In the amendment that we tabled both last week and today, we pointed out that there needs to be a realistic assessment of when and how a compulsory scheme should be introduced. We also made the point that we do not need a gold-plated home information pack scheme. We were therefore pleased that the scheme outlined by the Minister in her statement is confined to fulfilling the important EU directive, and does not include gold-plated extras. Her statement yesterday was three times longer than our amendment, but it made the same points.
	A useful concept has been wrecked by difficulties of the Government's own making, and it would be unwise and unsafe to plough on. The Minister may initially have been seduced by an attractive argument, and one which appeals to me on many occasions—that anything opposed both by estate agents and by the Conservative party must be good. Well, 99 times out of 100, that is correct, but the Minister has belatedly understood that this was the 100th occasion.
	We are grateful for the decision that the hon. Lady has taken and we look forward with great interest to what will happen next. The Liberal Democrats welcome the energy efficiency certificate and the fact that it will be introduced next year. However, she should not take too much credit for bringing it in 18 months early. That is not the case. In 1998, my former hon. Friend who was then the Member for Torridge and West Devon introduced a Bill that would have brought about exactly what is to happen in 2007. I was a sponsor of his Energy Efficiency Bill and served on the Committee that considered it. The Bill was opposed by the Government and eventually fell in July 1998.
	If the Government want to take the credit for introducing home energy certificates 18 months early, they should also take the blame for bringing them in nine years late—nine years in which an extra 1.5 million homes have been built and about 11 million homes have been sold, none of which have had home energy efficiency checks, because back in 1998 the Government opposed their introduction. There have been no certificates, no transparency and no market pressure for energy efficiency for nine unnecessarily prolonged years.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. People did not undertake the training, because they were not sure whether the Government were committed to HIPs, which has proved to be the case. He is right: the Government have let down those students, so surely they should pay.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: For the sake clarification, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party supports the home condition report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With no disrespect to either hon. Gentleman, that amendment was not selected, so it would not be in order to go into detail about it.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is experienced in those matters. Indeed, I believe that she is currently training in the process of undertaking home condition reports— [Interruption.] She makes the valid point that the reports are about providing additional information to the public to enable them to make more informed judgments, and the abusive noises from the Opposition Benches imply disrespect towards those who are seriously trying to help the public to be better informed about the most important financial decision that most people will make in their lives.
	There is ground for concern about the speed of implementation and the adequacy of the number of home inspectors, but the Government's decision to pull the plug on the mandatory home condition reports is precipitate and wrong. The training of inspectors, although slow to start, has been gathering pace this summer. Indeed, there will be many upset and angry individuals who have invested much time and money in preparation and training for the introduction of the reports. They will feel badly let down. All the evidence that I have gleaned from those with genuine experience of the market shows that the June 2007 date was achievable and that, even if some difficulties had occurred around the start of the new arrangements, they would have been overcome in a relatively short time.
	Let me say a brief word about the likely impact on the market. There has probably been more ill-informed speculation, scaremongering and nonsense aired in recent months about that than about any other aspect of the scheme. The suggestion, which has been put about, that HIPs will lead to a massive slump in the market and that 90,000 estate agents will consequently be out of work—incidentally, that was seen as a downside—are, frankly, not worth the newspaper on which they are written.
	Of course, there may be some short-term reductions in the number of properties put on the market because, as everyone knows, under current arrangements, some homeowners put their properties up for sale to get a feel for their value, with no serious intention of proceeding to sell. However, by definition, the vast majority of those speculative sales would never have proceeded. So the idea that their withdrawal from estate agents' windows will lead to a collapse of the volume of sales is unconvincing. The report to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) repeatedly referred is a perfect example of that. If one puts rubbish in as one's assumption, one is likely to get rubbish out as one's conclusion.
	The factors that determine the overall volume of sales and, indeed, trends in house prices are far more fundamental and reflect wider economic trends. While the Government continue to manage our economy as skilfully as they have done in the past nine years, we should have no reason to fear a serious downturn in the market. On the contrary, the creation of a fairer, better, quicker and more transparent system of buying and selling homes should improve the prospects for a thriving housing market in the years ahead—one in which the interest of the public comes first and the professionals involved are genuinely competing for business in a way that delivers best value for money for the citizens.
	I greatly regret yesterday's announcement that home condition reports will not be a mandatory component of home information packs when they are introduced next June. The suggestion that they can be introduced on a voluntary basis is wishful thinking. The irony behind all that is that, after years of dragging their feet, many of the vested interests who have done well financially out of the current arrangements have come round to accepting that a fundamental reform was inevitable. The more progressive elements in the industry were already gearing up to take advantage of a more open and transparent market in a way that would have brought genuine benefits to the public. It is hardly surprising that consumer voices are the most disappointed today and that the backwoods estate agents and the Opposition are crowing.
	I am sorry that the Government, whom I support and as part of whom I served for many years, have made such a grievous error of judgment, which will make it much harder to achieve the fundamental reform to the home buying and selling process in England that is so overdue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will realise before too long that they have made a mistake, which must be reversed, and that they must introduce HIPs, with the full mandatory home condition report, in the lifetime of the Parliament.

Clive Betts: Some years ago, the Government introduced the draft Housing Bill, which contained the initial proposals for HIPs. I was a member of the then Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which considered the proposals. I was also a member of the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill. Other hon. Members who are here today were also part of that process.
	I began by making the basic presumption that the present house buying and selling processes in this country were not really adequate or fit for purpose. To begin with, however, I was not convinced that HIPs necessarily represented the right way forward. I therefore asked members of the Select Committee to take part in the discussions on the Housing Bill and to question Ministers and Members on the Opposition Front Bench. Eventually, I came to round to the view that HIPs were an appropriate way forward, although I did have some reservations and wanted to see certain elements of them changed.
	There were certain givens involved in the house buying and selling processes that we needed to see incorporated into any system designed to deliver an appropriate process for our constituents. When individuals buy or sell a property, they are embarking on what is, for most of them, the most important financial transaction of their lives. Buyers and sellers are therefore entitled to receive and provide appropriate and adequate information about the property. That is a very simple point.
	At the moment, people embark on that process with nothing more than an estate agent's guide—and we all know what that can mean in practice in many cases. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) talked about estate agents. Anyone can set themselves up as an estate agent. In this country, they need no qualifications at all to do so. There are some very good ones on whom I would be very happy to rely, but the reality is that many have no qualifications. The general public ought to be very concerned indeed that all they have to go on when buying a house is a brochure from an estate agent. The principle that the public should be protected by a system in which the seller provides information to the prospective buyer therefore seems a good starting point.
	Secondly, whatever process we have, there will be costs. At present, there are search and survey costs and a whole variety of other costs, including estate agency fees. It seems to me to be reasonable that the costs should fall on the vendor rather than the purchaser. That protects first-time buyers who, by their very nature, are not sellers, and will therefore be helped by home information packs and home condition reports as they will not have to bear upfront costs. I shall deal with the point at which costs might be incurred in a moment.
	If we can develop a system that avoids at least some elements of the duplication that can, although not in every transaction, occur, we should do so. At present, it is obvious that some transactions involve more than one request for a search and that some individuals seeking to buy a house have a search done on more than one property. If we can avoid that duplication by providing the search in the pack from the beginning, that seems to be a sensible principle. Some properties may have been on the market for so long that a second search must be done. The likelihood, however, is that there will be fewer searches and less expenditure under the HIPs proposals than under the current arrangements. No one has ever really tried to dispute that.
	If information about the energy efficiency of homes can be incorporated into the system, I would hope that everyone would welcome it. I take the point, however, that if someone is to visit the home for the purpose of ascertaining its energy efficiency, it would be the best use of time and expenditure were an examination of the state of the property and a structural survey also done. That leads me to my next point. The House has a responsibility, as do the Government, to protect people from themselves to a degree. I find incredible the number of people in this country who still buy homes—the biggest financial transaction in their lives—without having a survey done. The only surveys that they have done are by the building societies, and we know how peripheral those can be. If we ask people to engage in a process with that amount of financial commitment, without also requiring them to have a survey completed, we would be failing in our duty as parliamentarians, and the Government would also be failing in their duty. Therefore, a system that requires a survey to be done is sensible.
	For those reasons and good principles, a system of HIPs, with HCRs as part of it, seemed to me an appropriate way forward. As well as agreeing to the principle of the Government's proposal, I also believed that it was right to consider how it would be implemented. Throughout the process, especially in the Bill's Committee stage, I engaged the Minister in debate and asked for proper pilots to be carried out. If the Government's statement today means that we will have a proper dry run, a proper look at what will happen, and an opportunity to iron out some of the wrinkles inevitable in any scheme when it is first implemented, I will welcome that. I will not, however, welcome a decision that ultimately means that we do not get the principle of HIPs with HCRs as part of a mandatory process. I will accept the Government's proposal if an eventual move to mandatory HCRs is still very much on the table, and if the Government are prepared to give serious consideration—as the Minister has committed to do, although she has not committed to introduce the system—to including in the pilots, at least in some cases, an element of mandatory HCRs.
	There will be some potential difficulties when the scheme begins. Unlike Conservative Members, however, I have some faith in markets. The people engaged in the process will adapt and change, and all the complaints from the Council of Mortgage Lenders about the dual cost of valuations will melt away. Magically, valuations will appear in most cases and will be co-ordinated with surveys done as part of HCRs. Ultimately, we will find that there is one process, and that lenders who refuse to accept that the introduction of HIPs and HCRs has changed the way in which we buy and sell houses in this country will go out of business. Those who want to stay in business will adapt to the new system, and we will not find that there are two charges upfront for valuations.
	We have heard all the scare stories about £1,000 upfront, but we know that those are nonsense. What will happen is that HIP providers will come forward who will only charge people when the house is sold. How do we know that that will happen? Maria Coleman, who ran the trial scheme in Bristol—which, I understand is still running— came to a deal with all those engaged in the process and the charge was made only at the end of that process. As I said, I have some faith in markets—I am surprised that Conservative Members do not—and they will adapt when the changes come about.

Bob Neill: I am grateful and relieved to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to be able to make my first speech in the House during this debate. Indeed, after last Wednesday's events I am grateful and relieved that there is a debate for me to speak in.
	I begin my speech with mixed feelings—in particular, feelings of both humility and sadness. I say that, of course, in relation to my predecessor, the right hon. Eric Forth. It is not easy to follow someone who became a legend in the House in his own lifetime. He was an exceptional parliamentarian, someone who was passionate about the House and passionate about the defence of its rights, as he was passionate about the rights and freedoms of the individual. He was passionate about the integrity of the democratic and legislative process. If he sometimes made himself less than popular on Friday mornings in that regard, it was because he believed in the importance of making any measure presented to the House subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. It would be interesting to know what he might have said had he been here to contribute to this debate.
	I must also express a measure of sadness, because Eric was a good friend to me, as is his wife, Carol, who many hon. Members will know was a great support in all that he did. He had many friends among right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House. He also had many friends in the constituency of Bromley and Chislehurst. Despite the myth that he assiduously cultivated to the contrary, he was a very dedicated constituency MP.
	It is very difficult for me to fill his shoes and stand in his place. I can endeavour only to do my best. Members will have their own recollections of Eric and his endeavours in the House, and many of the tributes paid to him were accepted on all sides. I particularly liked one tribute to the effect that Eric
	"regularly made a lot of mediocre people very angry. He was a wasp in the jar of public life and a first-class nuisance."
	He would have liked and appreciated those sentiments and the spirit with which they were expressed. It sums up what he believed was his duty as an MP—to say what he believed without fear or favour. We all know that he certainly did that throughout his entire career here.
	By way of a final tribute to Eric, I can say two further things. He was a legendary debater, as I know from observing some of his debates on television. Many Members will recall his sparring across the Chamber with the late Robin Cook. Many people I spoke to during the by-election campaign commented on the ironic tragedy of those two great parliamentarians being taken from us prematurely. Secondly, in summation, my ultimate tribute to Eric is to express my sadness that I am here in his place rather than joining him here.
	Given the past few weeks, Bromley and Chislehurst may not be wholly unknown to right hon. and hon. Members and I am certainly grateful to my hon. Friends who took the opportunity to make their acquaintance with the constituency. The area is described in a well known reference book as a classic piece of London suburbia. I might take issue with that a little, because it does not do justice to the diversity of the constituency or to suburbia itself. The truth is that it is part of Kent and many of my constituents regard themselves as inhabitants of Kent as much as of London. Over the years, the area was eaten up by the growth of the metropolis and the advance of the railways.
	A range of communities live within the area. To the north is the village of Mottingham. Moving down towards Chislehurst, originally a village on one of the main roads towards Maidstone and we move through the former garden suburb of Bickley to the old market town of Bromley, which was once a summer residence of the bishops of Rochester. It grew into a major commercial centre, as it happily remains today, based on the main railway line to London. We then move on to the suburbs of Hayes and the village of Keston.
	Over the years, the area has attracted a variety of residents. I am told that W. G. Grace lived in Mottingham and while I was canvassing, I discovered at the northern tip of the constituency the house in which he lived. I also discovered that he had a total score in first-class matches of 55,213. Now that is a result! I am conscious that I am going to have to up my run rate a little if I am to match that.
	Chislehurst was at one time home to Emperor Napoleon III during his exile in this country. He was attracted, apparently, by its easy rail access to London—plus ça change, some might say. A later inhabitant was Richmal Crompton and many people say that characters and places in the "Just William" books can be identified in Chislehurst to this day. One story was entitled something like "William Gets By" and, after the by-election, I have some sympathy with that sentiment; indeed, I remember thinking that I should re-read that story.
	Bromley was home to H. G. Wells who, happily from my point of view, did not have as lasting an impact on the political philosophy of its residents as he might have done. Even more dramatically, the place was home to Prince Peter Kropotkin, author of the theory of anarchism.
	On a different tack, William Pitt the Younger had his home at Holmwood in the southern end of the constituency, and it is particularly relevant, with the anniversary of the abolition of slavery coming up, that it was in the gardens there that he and William Wilberforce talked about Wilberforce's proposals to abolish the slave trade.
	So my constituency has had a pretty varied and lively past—not entirely typical of suburbia, I would submit. Of course, its present-day occupants and residents come from a diverse background, too. What they have in common, as well as that dual identity between London and Kent, is that they are the people who through their skills and hard work are the engine that keeps London the economic powerhouse and centre that it is. That is true of all suburbia, and the contribution of its inhabitants to the capital and the nation is therefore often seriously underestimated.
	People choose to live in the outer-London suburbs because they believe that doing so gives them and their families and children a better quality of life. They are prepared to tolerate journeys on the railways that are probably marginally less stately or comfortable than those that Napoleon III enjoyed, precisely because they want to live in a community that has greenery and space. It was clear during the by-election campaign that that feature is threatened: people are concerned that the qualify of life in those suburbs is undermined by the pressures of building. They are not nimbies—they want their own children to have homes to live in—but they are concerned that the development of those new homes should be in the right place and should not take place at the cost of the existing environment.
	People are concerned about the cost of living in suburban London—for example transport costs, but also the costs of council tax and housing, which is why I wanted to speak in this debate—but above all they are concerned that a one-size-fits-all planning policy, coming from the Mayor of London, threatens to undo the benefits of the suburbs and not offer the advantages that might have been intended. That is a key issue for them, and they fear that they will see more and more in-fill development, which cannot be sustainable in the long term for anyone.
	One of my predecessors as the Member for the Bromley part of the constituency was, of course, the late Earl of Stockton, Harold Macmillan. Although I appreciate that I am more mature than some new entrants to the House, I cannot pretend that I remember him when he was Prime Minister, other than as a black-and-white figure flickering on the television set in my parents' home. However, as I became involved in politics as a student, his legacy was still a fresh and cogent one, which has remained with me for a long time.
	I have re-read Alistair Horne's remarkable biography of Macmillan, and he made the point that, among Macmillian's many qualities, those that stood out were his ability to think forwards—to relate the basic principles of his philosophy and of his party, when he was its leader, to the challenges both of today and of tomorrow—and his great skill in restating those principles in terms of the issues of today and in the language of today, tackling at that time the growth of the post-war mass consumer society. That need is as relevant now as ever, so I am glad to say that I think that the spirit of Harold Macmillan lives on among my right hon. and hon. Friends in the House and elsewhere.
	Of course, Macmillan's first great contribution in redefining the post-war Conservative party was in housing. It was Macmillan who set out practical and deliverable means of increasing the supply of housing and of advancing home ownership. That is something about which my constituents feel very passionately indeed, and that sentiment applies right across the breadth of society.
	The London assembly, of which I currently have the honour to be a member, carried out a survey of key public sector workers as long ago as 2001. That survey identified that some 77 per cent. of the people who drive our buses, who are our police officers, who are our teachers and who work in the medical profession, such as nurses—those who keep the city ticking along—had an aspiration to own their own homes. It was the inability to purchase in London that often caused those people to leave the capital. When considering the home information pack proposal, I asked whether it would make it any easier for those people to achieve that aspiration. I will adhere to the convention and attempt to be as non-controversial as possible, but I regret to say that the evidence that I have received does not persuade me that that would be the case.
	In particular, I have, for obvious reasons, had more opportunity than most to talk to members of the general public in the past few months. Whenever the issue was raised—more often than one might think—on the doorstep, not one person had anything to say in favour of the proposals. They were not at all backwoodsmen but ordinary members of the public who aspire to encourage home ownership for their children and feel that the home information packs will be a hindrance, rather than a help. I take the point that there is always room for improvement in how we deal with home purchase and selling, but it is not an advance to identify the problem and come up with the wrong answer. That is what concerned the people I met about the Government's original proposals. They are concerned that inevitably—and despite all that we have heard in this debate—the costs will be passed on to the purchaser, which will bear especially harshly on first-time buyers, who will often have to commission their own surveys because they are likely to borrow more than the 80 per cent. of the value of the property that is likely to be the cut-off point, and will need greater comfort because they will not have a track record with the financial institutions. The changes will make the task of first-time buyers harder. Those in Bromley already have to raise more than the normally accepted rate in terms of the earnings to borrowing ratio and the proposals will make that harder.
	It is also clear that the proposals will not assist in the matter of structural subsidence. There was much publicity in my constituency recently when some homes in the centre of Bromley disappeared into a hole in the ground. The incident also caused the main line out of Victoria and the Eurostar to be suspended for some time. The proposals would not have assisted those people. They will, however, pose an additional bureaucratic burden.
	I have considered the regulations and the explanatory notes, which run to more than 104 pages of text. I accept the genuineness of the desire to make home purchase less stressful, but I am not sure that ploughing through this legislation would make it less stressful for anyone. As well as speaking to ordinary residents, I have taken the opportunity to speak to professionals, and I would not sneer at their views. Those who have had 20 or 30 years of experience as conveyancing or trust solicitors say that they have a real fear that the proposals will cause fewer houses to come on to the market. They are not whipping up a froth in support of vested interests: those to whom I talked struck me as persons of integrity who gave me the benefit of their own empirical experience. That should be of value in deciding the best approach to this issue.
	I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. Eric Forth's favourite word was "why". I suspect that he would have applied that test to these proposals and I fear that he would have drawn the conclusion that he had not had a satisfactory answer. From all that I have heard, I have not had one either.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I should like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for his excellent maiden speech. It was marvellous to hear him talk about Eric Forth. I had many arguments with him, but no one can deny that he was a stalwart of this House, or that he did it great service. I know that the hon. Gentleman's words will have been received very well.
	Before I make my contribution on HIPs, I must first declare my interests. I am a chartered engineer, and a fellow of the following organisations: the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Institute of Electrical Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors, the Institution of Engineering Designers, and the City and Guilds Institute. At various times, I am required to provide information to those bodies, and I have participated in a number of their campaigns in respect of various Bills.
	I am also chair of the all-party building services engineering group, which receives support from the Heating and Ventilation Contractors Association. I host meetings in the House for women in plumbing that are sponsored by the Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering. I chair the all-party group for construction skills and training, which receives support from the Construction Industry Training Board. For many years I have worked for specialist electrical contractors and for the Electrical Contractors Association. I sit on the board of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, whose membership includes people working in the housing industry. I am also one of those currently undergoing training so that I can provide home inspection surveys.
	I am a member of the Engineering Technology Board, which regulates academic standards in the engineering sector and which will also be responsible for regulating the course provided by Reading university. I sit on the board's panel that represents the interests of registrants, many of whom have qualified already as home inspectors. In the past eight months, I have met all the chief executives in the sector skills council who represent the interests of companies in the engineering sector, including those that have been heavily involved in giving thousands of people the opportunity to undertake the home inspector's role.
	In addition, I work with all the engineering institutions that have a vested interest in promoting engineering and the development of vocational and professional standards. I believe that the HIP, and the home condition report in particular, offered an excellent opportunity to improve housing stock over time.
	It would be useful to compare the HIP with the MOT test for cars. The MOT was introduced after many years of motoring disasters. The Tories have given various reasons in the debate as to why HIPs should be dismissed, and I have no doubt that they would give the same reasons to reject the MOT if that test were to be introduced today.
	The same arguments apply. The MOT test comes at an additional cost that is a burden for car owners, and when the test was introduced the serious problem was that too few people were qualified to carry it out. However, would we seriously suggest today that we should not have the MOT test, given that it has led to significant safety improvements in car production and use? We would not, as the MOT test is a very sensible intervention.
	I believe that the HIP is the equivalent of an MOT for houses. It will cost money, but the aim is to ensure that people have safer homes to live in and understand the condition of the houses that they buy. That is what we expect to happen with cars, which cost only a fraction of the price of houses, so why should we not get the same help when we purchase a home?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made excellent speeches earlier, and I wholeheartedly support what they said. Like them, I am deeply concerned at the fact that the HIP is not to be introduced next year.
	Like my Back-Bench hon. Friends, I support the cause of making home condition reports compulsory, and I do so for the following reasons. When the Housing Bill was introduced, it was argued that HIPs would deliver:
	"Transaction Improvements by reducing the abortive costs to consumers and the industry as well as reducing the number of failed transactions caused by survey or valuation inspection findings."
	It was claimed that they would also deliver:
	"Housing Stock Condition Improvements by a reduction in the incidence of unexpected repair bills and encouraging better maintenance of homes."
	It was also said that they would create:
	"Greater Consumer Choice by reducing the entry costs to first time buyers and creating a market of serious sellers."
	Many colleagues have discussed transaction improvements and greater consumer choice, but I want to concentrate briefly on housing stock condition and the importance of the home condition report. It has rightly been pointed out that many first-time buyers do not engage their own surveyor to assess the condition of the property that they are purchasing, and in many cases they will be purchasing a property with a number of costly problems. Unless the previous owner has taken the time to ensure that all the work undertaken in their home has been carried out by a competent person, the buyer must beware.
	Far too many people buy properties with serious problems. They might face serious problems with their electrical distribution capacity. That might mean that they cannot add anything more to their existing electrical circuits than they already have, or that that they get shocks from systems in their kitchen, or that their lights go out whenever they switch on a radio, simply because their electrical board has not been updated—and does not meet any of the standards introduced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the past few years.
	More worryingly, people might have serious problems with their gas supply and the gas distribution in their home. Unless they have commissioned a survey to determine that, they will find that out the first time someone comes to inspect their boiler. I have spoken to many people who received a nasty shock when their boiler was inspected—not an electrical shock, but a serious shock of a different kind when the inspector said, "I'm now going to switch off your boiler and your gas supply because you're not safe." People say in reply, "Well, I bought it only a few weeks ago; it's a new boiler." A new boiler is not necessarily a safe gas installation; it is not a safe gas installation when it has not been installed by a competent person.
	As much as we would like to think that every such person who comes to our homes is competent to carry out the jobs that we pay them to do, none of us are that naive. Lots of people who come into our homes, and go into the homes of our constituents, profess to be something that they are not. They do not carry industry competence certificates to demonstrate that they are capable of doing the job. It is not only the person who owns that house at that time who suffers as a consequence of that: so, too, does the person who will buy that house in the future.
	Let us talk about drainage. Most of us take drainage for granted; we flush the toilet and everything disappears. But that is not always the case. Some people knowingly sell a home that has serious drainage problems. The buyer does not know about that if they have chosen not to have a survey done. The home condition report allows them to know about that, because an assessment of the drainage will have been carried out—and drainage is very expensive. It can cost people tens of thousands of pounds to correct a drain, even when they have insurance cover of the drains within their property. More often than not, the problem is outside the property, and they do not have insurance to cover that. The whole of their drive could be taken up, right back to the main road, and that could cost £10,000. The cost of this report is negligible in comparison, even if the purchaser has to bear it.
	What about construction? Many Members have talked about subsidence. As an engineer, I like subsidence; it provides me with a great intellectual challenge, and I have never yet come across an instance of subsidence that I cannot sort out—but that is me. I have looked into the qualifications of Members of this House, and none of them has any of the qualifications that I have, so I am okay on the subject of subsidence.  [Interruption.] It is a shame; it is a great shame. I am okay on that, but most people's biggest worry is subsidence. They are very frightened by the possibility of subsidence, because subsidence means tens of thousands of pounds in costs. It does not mean that to me, but it does mean that to most Members of this House.
	When surveyors carry out home condition reports, they do not come in with no knowledge whatsoever. They are not going to see subsidence and then not tell people about it. We are professional engineers, and the people who take this course will be committed to high standards. If they are not going to exhibit high standards, they will be fined. They could be charged and they will be brought into litigation, which would be counterproductive, so they do not want that. Although they might not be able to do anything about a particular incidence of subsidence, they are not going to fail to point it out. Subsidence is pretty obvious—it is not a small crack in the wall that occurs as a result of drying out. It is serious problem, and surveyors will see it, just as I could see it immediately if I walked into a Member's home that was suffering from it. I would not fail to point it out, because I am a chartered professional engineer and we are required to point it out. Currently, first-time buyers do not get that service if they cannot afford the privilege of accessing that information. Such access is what we need.
	The home condition report is not just of use to the person who is purchasing the property; it could save the life of the person selling it, which is why it is important and why we need it. There are too many rogue traders working in this area. Far too many householders enlist the services of people who are supposed to be competent, but are not. I am not going to blame householders for doing so, because the vast majority of us are completely ignorant of this world. We cannot know everything, but we have got to enlist people whom we can trust to help us get good standards at home.
	Let us say that I sell my house tomorrow and a surveyor assesses it—looks at my gas and electrical installations, at my property's construction and at the drainage—and says, "This isn't right and we are concerned about it; we want to look at your certification." Then, on my handing them the certification, they say, "Well, it looks pretty, but it is worth nothing—you must have the property surveyed again." I would want to know that. I have got three children, and I would want to know whether my property was safe. I would then go back to the person who did the work—or try to—and say, "Come on, give me the correct documentation."
	However, most people in that situation will be in for a very nasty shock. They will find out that those who did the work were not competent to do so and cannot supply the certification. At that point, they will learn pretty quickly who is competent to assess home installations. That is great for the building service industry, which is bending over backwards to ensure that only legitimate people undertake work in homes. The big issue that we Members of Parliament deal with is consumer protection and consumers who are being ripped off by unethical traders. This measure—this intervention—has helped to address that problem enormously.
	So, like many of my colleagues here today, I regret the fact that the home condition report is not going to be in the home information pack. I understand why it is so important, and what a missed opportunity this is for consumer safety. I know, speaking for all of my colleagues without exception, that they will regret this, but what they will do is wait. If it is a requirement to provide a set number of people to do the job, that will happen, because we want a safe industry. We want to improve the standards of homes and to make them safer for people. That is what this is all about.
	I have heard some pretty adverse comments, but I have not heard Opposition Members talk about consumer safety, which is a pity. I cannot think of any better vehicle than this one to deliver improvements in consumer safety quickly. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at making home condition reports mandatory, because there is an imperative to do so. I am happy to wait while we sort out the number of people required, invigilation standards and so on, but there is an industry waiting to do this work, and a consumer protection imperative for us to deal with this issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) spoke for 15 minutes; I shall speak for a mere five to try to allow my colleagues time to get in.
	I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I was also heavily involved in the gestation of the home information pack measures as the official Opposition spokesman on the Homes Bill in 2000, the first that came before us on the matter. I pay tribute to the work done since by official Opposition spokesmen—my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who has valiantly campaigned on the issue and who made a very worthwhile speech today.
	We are where we are, but I agree with all who have said that we are in the worst of all possible worlds. We have half a compulsory measure, with all the costs that that will involve. For the sake of clarity, I shall quote the relevant paragraph of yesterday's written ministerial statement:
	"This means that the remaining aspects of Home Condition Reports will not be made mandatory from June next year, but HCRs will be authorised documents that sellers will be able to include in their packs."
	The sting in the tail comes next:
	"Mandatory HCRs will remain on the table if the industry fails to make a success of the roll out of HCRs."—[ Official Report, 18 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 13WS.]
	So, we really do not know where we are. We do not know whether they will be made mandatory or not.
	I wish to make what I think is a sensible suggestion. Let us leave the system as it is now proposed until the next general election. Let us see whether home information packs do the job that they are supposed to do. If they do, no doubt all parties will wish to include in their manifestos a promise to make HCRs mandatory. But if there are huge problems and if they have not done what they are supposed to do, I have no doubt that the Labour party, as well as my own, will run away from the idea as fast as it possibly can.
	I am interested in the costs and benefits. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who was quite right to identify the benefit as being about £1 million a day—some £365 million a year. He went on to say that no proper analysis has been done of the costs, but I shall give him some. The Government have produced figures on the sellers packs—official figures included in the explanatory notes to the last Bill—showing that the cost without the home condition report would have been £660 per pack, without value added tax. The cost of the home condition report is put at £400, and we could halve that for the environmental statement, which leaves the packs at about £460, or about £550 with VAT. Multiply that by the 1.2 million actual sales each year and we have a cost of about £650 million. In other words, there is a cost-benefit gap of about £300 million. For a benefit of £350 million, we are getting a cost of £300 million. What on earth is the sense of bringing in regulations that cost that amount for that benefit?
	There are a number of ways in which the Government could improve the housing market, which, on the basis of 1.2 million sales and average house prices, according to the Halifax, of £176,000, is a market of about £200 billion. There are several things in the market that they should consider. First, what should they do with the home condition inspectors currently under training? There are about 3,000 of them, and a lot are lowly paid people who have invested several thousand pounds of their own savings. They will not know today whether they should continue their training or not. I beg the Government to give those people a clear steer on what they should do.
	Other measures that the Government could consider include speeding up e-conveyancing and e-searches. The national information land register has been mentioned today, and of the 175 local authorities represented in the House, only 42 are properly e-enabled. Searches, more than anything else, hold up property transactions, and the Government could do a great deal in that respect. They should also look at estate agents. As has been said, they have a good association, but 30 per cent. of them are not members of it, and a number of that 30 per cent. are complete cowboys. Let us get the estate agents under control with proper regulations.
	The Government could do a number of things. They should look carefully at the whole market, if they want to interfere with it as they propose, with the buyer versus the seller, and remember the old maxim, caveat emptor. When buyers look at the packs they will think that they have everything on a plate, but there are still many problems that they will need to consider.
	There will be problems with the energy performance certificate and the Government should not underestimate them. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors estimates that the software will be correct for only 80 per cent. of houses and the Government will have more difficulty than they think in providing enough inspectors for the work.

Nia Griffith: I shall not repeat all the excellent points made by my hon. Friends, as there is little time left for the debate, so I shall focus on energy efficiency. I welcome the intention to include in HIPs information on energy efficiency, including information about how to cut fuel bills and carbon emissions. We are all becoming increasingly aware of the impact of carbon emissions on climate change, but in our busy lives we need reminders and incentives to encourage us to prioritise the issues. The concept of an energy performance certificate will help all home owners, vendors and purchasers alike, to focus on making their homes more energy-efficient.
	Viewing a house on a lovely warm day, such as today, it is easy to forget what it might be like in the middle of winter. First-time buyers in particular can find the whole process of buying a house such an ordeal, with so many different things to think about, that they often overlook the important issue of what the fuel bills are likely to be. It has been my experience as a vendor that hardly anybody looks at energy-saving features and few people ask what my fuel bills are.
	Information on energy efficiency is valuable to buyers, enabling them to make a realistic assessment of what their fuel bills are likely to be. It also allows them to make comparisons between the properties that they view. Furthermore, knowing that prospective purchasers will look at the energy efficiency information and compare the likely fuel costs of properties will act as an incentive to vendors to consider how they could make their home more energy-efficient. Estate agents' publicity material will mention more than just double glazing in terms of energy efficiency. People will increasingly talk of homes as "cheap to heat" or "expensive to heat". As that information becomes more important to prospective purchasers, it is likely to affect property prices; good energy features will be appreciated for the fuel bill savings that they can bring.
	In the course of my adult life I have bought and moved into eight homes, which usually involved improving older properties. I know how overwhelming the process can be, and the energy efficiency information in the pack will provide a useful checklist for people who are thinking about how to improve their property.
	Not only will people think about how to insulate their homes better and reduce fuel demand, but the knowledge that when they sell their home it will be judged on its energy efficiency will act as an incentive to consider installing microgeneration equipment for heat or electricity. Only a year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) chose to use his success in the private Members' Bill ballot to introduce the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. At that time, few people were talking about energy efficiency or microgeneration, so it is to his credit, with the support of the Minister for Energy, that those issues have gained so much prominence. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning for her genuine commitment to try to tackle climate change in her areas of responsibility. It is to her credit that we are even talking about energy performance certificates.
	The inclusion of energy efficiency information for prospective buyers will influence builders. When they are thinking about how to market their properties and steal a march on their competitors, they will give much more consideration to including features that enable them to boast of excellent energy efficiency ratings. That could have a significant impact on their choice of materials, the design of the layout of the house to make the best use of sunlight and the microgeneration equipment that could be included. If we are going to be serious about tackling climate change, it is no good just making grand speeches. It is a concern that should be addressed by all Departments across Government, not just by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry.
	I welcome the inclusion in home information packs of energy efficiency as a significant step forward in increasing awareness of what we can do to make our homes more energy efficient. I hope that the inclusion of energy efficiency in HIPs will serve as an excellent example to all Departments of how measures to encourage energy efficiency can and should be included in all areas where the Government have influence.

Robert Syms: I can only speculate about the reasons for the change. Third-term Governments in difficulty start to look for snags ahead. The housing market is important for growth, and I am sure that the Treasury has taken a view about the benefits and disbenefits of the initiative. Decisions have been made on other issues, and I suspect that they, too, are part of the reason. The rationale of HIPs, with which I disagree, has been destroyed to some extent by the removal of compulsion from a large part of the pack. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made an important point. He said that if an inspector is going to a home to prepare a home condition report, he can do the energy performance certificate at the same time. If the procedures are separated, the cost of the energy performance certificate increases, so the benefits of the scheme are reduced. The Government have some more serious thinking to do about whether to proceed with the other elements. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) posed many sensible questions about whether the remaining elements of the HIP would stand without the home condition report.
	Returning to the point about the people who have trained, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who had to leave the Chamber earlier, gave me an e-mail that he had received, which provides the perfect example. Guy Frazier of West Sussex has been doing a course with SAVA college, which I think is associated with Reading university. He says he has spent almost £10,000 on the course and on travelling backwards and forwards. He is £10,000 in debt and is very concerned about what that investment will bring him. I therefore make a plea to the Government. Instead of being spent on publicity, perhaps some money should go to supporting those who have taken the Government at face value, undertaken training and put themselves in debt. We heard earlier that although only 230-odd people have qualified, there are about 3,000 people under training. Unless they have some measure of certainty, they may feel that they have lost their money.
	We have had an interesting debate, with good contributions from several hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich set out what he saw as the rationale for the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) reminded us of the good sense of the people of Minehead and his various surveys in his constituency. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) argued the case for the scheme. I believe he also served on the Committee that considered the Bill which resulted in the Housing Act 2004, so he is a veteran of such debates.
	The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) spoke passionately about her concerns and about safety in the home. The House listened carefully, particularly to her CV and all her qualifications and engineering experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who is a veteran of the 2000 Bill, presented some compelling figures. The debate continued with the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) setting out her views, and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) articulating some important questions, which I hope the Minister is able to answer.
	The rushed decision, just before the recess, to change the nature of the game has probably raised more questions than it has provided answers, especially for many of those who are training in the hope of becoming home inspectors. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he can flesh out the Government's thinking. It is clear that the scheme as it is constructed at present will not work. At the beginning of the debate, we heard from the Minister for Housing and Planning about trials in areas, but home condition reports cannot be compulsory in some areas but not in others.

Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman has waited years to make that intervention in the House. I am glad I gave him the opportunity to do so, which he did very speedily. I will read it carefully tomorrow and perhaps give him a more considered reply.
	Home information packs are an important matter which will impact on all home buyers and sellers. I do not think the Government have got it right. We were right in our initial opposition. The Government have moved away from their original proposals and will have to think carefully about the viability of the whole scheme. We have had an interesting debate in an interesting week, and I look forward to the Minister's remarks.

Phil Woolas: This has been a fascinating debate, because it has flushed out the three types of Conservative Member in this Chamber. First, there are real "conservatives", who oppose change because they oppose change. That position is not intellectually coherent, but it is at least understandable and consistent. Secondly, there are those who want the status quo because their mates have told them that it is best. Again, that is not intellectually coherent, but I suppose that it is at least politically consistent. Finally, there are those who frighten me, and they want the unfettered free market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has pointed out, one would not buy a car without an MOT or a service logbook, but one would sell a car without an MOT or a service logbook, if the market regulation allowed. The Conservatives who frighten me are like Del Boy's friend Boycie, who would sell a car without that guarantee.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), whom I welcomed into this House—not least because it got him off the airwaves—falls into the last category of the unfettered free marketeer. Perhaps we should not be surprised. One amusing thing to do in the evening when waiting for a vote is to read the writings of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who has worked for the BBC—as did I—and still writes for  The Times. This is what he said about the housing market in 2002:
	"the housing market is a high stakes poker game".
	With great enthusiasm, he advocated approaching home selling and buying like a gambler with a hand of cards:
	"Nerve shredding as the process can be, poker has proved an invaluable help because it teaches you to wait, as the antes are raked up by the other players and your reserves of patience (and money) dwindle."
	He is consistent in his attitude to the housing market: let the unfettered free market decide.
	The hon. Gentleman recently wrote about his 1995 biography of his then hero, Michael Portillo, which was subtitled, "The future of the right". He wrote that it
	"ranks up there with Robert Maxwell's life of Ceausescu and David Steel's moving 1985 manifesto for government,  Partners in One Nation, as a work whose prescience left just a little to be desired."
	I suggest that his predictions about the future of the housing market under our policy will be just as accurate.

Phil Woolas: I will tell the House why the Government made the written ministerial statement yesterday—because we are determined that the policy will work and we will not play politics with buying and selling people's homes. We brought that statement to the House before the recess because we wished to be transparent and to send out the message, not only to the House but to the public, that we believe—on the basis of the advice and evidence that we have—that risks might well have been involved if the 1 June 2007 deadline for the entire pack had been stuck to. This is the right thing to do, to allow time for proper trials so that we can get the policy exactly right. If the market makes it work, we will have HIPs; if the market fails, we hold back the mandatory card. That is a responsible policy.
	I pay tribute to the new Member, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and wholeheartedly endorse his remarks about Eric, not only as a parliamentarian but as a Minister. He may be pleased to know that my own constituency benefited hugely from Eric's time as a Minister. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Robin Cook. The two men were great debaters in this House. I applaud him for his maiden speech. He may not have been an A-list candidate but he is an A-list Member of Parliament, and I welcome him to the House. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made a passionate, informed and typically knowledgeable speech. She drew our attention to the parallel with the MOT certificate, and clearly showed why she supports HIPs.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) asked us to consider sensitively the request for pilots and how the trials could be conducted. We will do that. He also said that he had faith in markets. I endorse that point and find it surprising that the Conservative party has lost its way with regard to its view about the markets and their contribution.
	The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said that he had been listening to the general public and estate agents. He is obviously concerned about the policy. He asked about rented properties for licence. We are considering the matter. The details have to be worked out and information will be forthcoming.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) spoke wisely, considered the policy in the round, made some pertinent criticisms of the official Opposition's policy and asked for more details about trials, which are important.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) welcomed the policy, as he has done consistently over months and years, and raised his concerns about the timing of the introduction of the mandatory elements in the packs. My hon. Friends and I will examine his words closely.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made an important point about regulating estate agents. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) reminded the House of the difficulties, stress and trauma of buying a house. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) asked some pertinent questions. I can provide more details in writing but the essential answer to her question—

Lembit �pik: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) may become used to this if she deals with Northern Ireland business. Statutory instrument committees often take place at the same time as parliamentary business relating to Northern Ireland. It has been a source of frustration to me that the timing of business sometimes falls in impossible ways.
	The Liberal Democrats consider the timing sufficient. Assuming that the Minister is willing to show humility and common sense, and to accept the sage guidance and counsel of the hon. Lady and of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), I am sure that we shall be finished in minutes rather than hours.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
	'(ca) keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of provision for those older people who are disabled.'.
	This is a simple amendment that I tabled in order to probe the Minister on two specific aspects of the Bill. I hope that the drafting will require the commissioner to give special consideration to disabled people when promoting best practice in the treatment of older people in Wales.
	I start by looking into the position of deaf people in Wales. The number of people in the UK estimated by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to be deaf or hard of hearing is a phenomenally large 8,954,000. Of those, 688,000 have severe hearing difficulties or are profoundly deaf. The RNID does not publish separate figures for Wales, which again poses the question of disaggregated statistics. My first question to the Minister is whether he will look into the opportunities afforded to the commissioner's office, his own office, or indeed the Assembly, to produce accurate, separate disaggregated statistics, particularly on deaf and blind people in Wales.
	As it is not easy to get the statistics by a readily identifiable route, I was helped by the Library. It told my researcher, Guy L'Etang, that it had done some calculations based on the population of Wales and estimated that approximatelyI stress, approximately440,000 people will be deaf or hard of hearing and that, of those, 34,000 will have severe hearing difficulties or be profoundly deaf. As there is a disproportionately large number of older people in Wales, we are not entirely sure of those figures, but it is there or thereabouts, which puts the whole situation in proportion. What responsibilities is it envisaged the commissioner will have for certain aspects of provisions for the deaf, particularly in respect of interpreters? I hope that both English and Welsh language interpreters are covered. That leads me to my next question for the Minister. What arrangements will be in place and what influence will the commissioner have in ensuring that, in respect of lip speakers, deaf-blind interpreters and deaf interpreters, both languages are used in Wales? Dealing with the bilingual situation could be extremely important.
	British sign language was officially recognised as a British language in 2003, but there is no one national list of qualified professionals who work for deaf people. That can result in deaf people waiting for communications support to be sourced and in unqualified people being supplied to provide communications. I have an excellent qualified professional in my constituency, Diana Smith, who is particularly concerned about these matters in England, so it seems apposite to raise them in relation to Wales. Could the commissioner establish a single register of language service professionals for deaf people, including providers of British sign language English, interpreters, lip speakers, deaf-blind interpreters and deaf interpreters? I also wonder whether it is within the commissioner's powers to encourage the institutions to protect by law the professional title of those who are qualified to work as language service professionals for all deaf people. I appreciate the fact that those are detailed questions, and if the Minister cannot come up with the answers now, I am quite willing to let him write to me with any information that he may have.
	I should like to know what powers the commissioner can take with regard to the Home Office and the police. In Committee, we established that the commissioner will not have any power that is directly linked to Ministers of the realm. The commissioner will deal with Assembly and devolved matters, as opposed to those that are reserved to this House. That raises a specific issue with disabled people, particularly deaf people: most constabularies in Britain do not hold a list of qualified, security-cleared BSL-English interpreters and lip speakers who can be called to a police station for arrested people who are deaf. The Minister will appreciate that that causes problems. It usually results in deaf detained people being held in custody for many hours without access to communication or representation, and some deaf victims are severely delayed in being able to make their statements to the police.
	I understand that such arrangements do not exist in Walesthe problem is widespread in England and Walesso if those people happen to be elderly, I need to know what influence the commissioner could have over such things, which could be quite crucial to an increasingly large older and deaf population. What are the current arrangements in Wales and what influence will the commissioner have in ensuring that deaf people get equity of access when held by the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the forthcoming disability equality scheme? At what level of detail will the commissioner have an influence over the rules and regulations or the mode of practice that needs to be operated in our police stations and by our police services throughout Wales? I hope that that deals with the specific situation for older people who have a hearing disability.
	Turning to the other matter that I wish to raise under the auspices of the amendment, I was approached by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I believe that the Minister is familiar with the briefing that came from that estimable organisation. It was very pleased to provide a brief to many hon. Members, so I claim no credit for raising these points, other than to say that it seemed apposite to raise them through the medium of the amendment, perhaps to express some of its concerns and to ask questions on its behalf.
	The association is very pleased with the Bill. The prevalence of visual impairment increases dramatically with age, as we all know. Indeed, it is only with the aid of the 16-point typeface on my computer that I am able to read the script that is in front of me without the aid of glasses. The Minister obviously relies on glasses. I am told that, at some stage, my eyesight will stop deteriorating, and I am looking forward to that day, because it seems to deteriorate daily.

Cheryl Gillan: No thanks. I appreciate the offer, but I have got big print in front of me.
	RNIB Cymru has estimated that there are 100,000 people with serious sight loss in Wales. As the prevalence of visual impairment increases so much with age and as the number of older people in Wales is predicted to increase dramatically over the next few years, it follows that a dramatic increase is likely in the number of visually impaired older people. It is surprising that, despite the ageing population, the standard of rehabilitation services for blind and partially sighted people remains variable in Wales and, indeed, throughout the UK. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has said that, in some cases, it is indeed very poor.
	There are rehabilitation services for visually impaired people. Rehabilitation training is designed to introduce and maintain a level of independent functioning by enabling blind and partially sighted people to develop the skills that they need to meet their aspirations. Appropriately trained rehabilitation workers play a crucial role.
	Independent research has been carried out and shows a far from pleasing picture. The state of rehabilitation service provision for blind and partially sighted people is not good. There is a chronic shortage of rehabilitation workers. Local authorities are not investing in the necessary training and many authorities in Wales do not have adequate or dedicated services. Since 1995, there has been a shift away from local authority spending on services for people with physical and sensory needs. The result is that many blind and partially sighted people are forced to stay in their homes and are unable to go anywhere without a guide, leading to exclusion from work, social and civic life. What influence will the new commissioner have in that area?
	The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has set up a UK-wide rehabilitation project. It has been very inventive and has a Welsh steering group which is set to take forward the objectives of the rehabilitation project group in Wales. It is also working to secure the future of professional training for rehabilitation workers in several educational institutions, but specifically in Cardiff. What influence will the commissioner have in encouraging Cardiff to secure the future of professional training at that university? Will the commission be able to work with the association and the rehabilitation project on the benchmarking report that was commissioned by the Welsh Local Government Association, the Assembly Government and the Wales Council for the Blind? That is an important group which is carrying out a worthwhile exercise. I would like to ensure that the commissioner has the opportunity to work with that group and the Welsh steering group, so that the quality of life of many thousands of blind and partially sighted people in Wales can be improved.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to put on the record the fact that the commissioner will be encouraged to look at this area and give it a high priority when he takes up office and establishes the commission. I hope that he will be able to reply to both points that I have raised in relation to the deaf and the blind. I hope also that he will take the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled. I have no intention of pressing it to a vote; it was intended as a vehicle for the Minister to provide reassurance to people outside the Chamber on those two issues.

Cheryl Gillan: Although my name is not attached to the amendment, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Both in this Bill and in the Government of Wales Bill there are widely drawn powers of patronage and financial assistance that, in this case, the commissionerthe Assembly Ministers in the case of the Government of Wales Billcan use to disburse funds to any organisation and to anybody at any time. The amendment strikes me as sensible in ensuring that we have a discussion because, yesterday, in discussion of the Government of Wales Bill, a piece of Labour-sponsored, Labour-bought research from the Bevan Foundation was prayed in aid to support it. It is not, then, outwith the possibilities that individuals in Wales, which certainly is not going to remain a one-party state for any length of time, could commission materials for political purposes. For example, the commissioner could ask the Labour party research department or researchers to produce information on older people as members of the Labour party itself. We would not want to see funds flowing from the taxpayer into the back pocket of the Labour party in that sense. The Minister's response will be interesting.
	I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who takes a great interest in these matters, tabled the amendment so that the Minister can give us his full interpretation of the clause. The Opposition always try to work constructively and if the amendment can improve the legislation I shall be only too happy if the Minister adopts it, or proposes one of his own, to ensure that we have the right protection for taxpayers' money.

Nick Ainger: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill received its Second Reading on 15 June, and it was considered in Standing Committee on 27 June. It is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that enables the National Assembly to set up an independent champion for older people, who will play a vital role in addressing ageism and discrimination against older people.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales noted in opening the debate on Second Reading, the position will be the first of its kind in the UK and, indeed, possibly the world. The Bill is another milestone in our commitment to older people in Wales. The commissioner will be able to speak up on behalf of older people in Wales, helping to raise their profile and increase awareness of their needs.
	The policy originated with older people themselves and their representatives, and it is firmly evidence-based. The report of the Assembly Government's expert advisory group, When I'm 64...and more, recommended the establishment of a commissioner for older people. The policy became a key commitment in the Welsh Labour manifesto for the 2003 Assembly elections. The draft Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill was published in March last year and distributed to more than 2,000 stakeholders across Wales. The responses again demonstrated that there is a great deal of support for the proposals, with no fewer than 94 per cent. of respondents in favour of the establishment of the commissioner.
	The draft Bill was also considered and debated by the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee and in a full plenary session, where the motion to welcome the Bill and endorse the commitment to establish a commissioner was overwhelmingly supported. My predecessor as Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on the draft Bill, and I thank him for his role in bringing the legislation to fruition.
	The Bill was introduced in the other place, where it underwent detailed scrutiny and was subject to amendment. Those changes were made for four main reasons: first, to take account of views expressed in the public consultation process; secondly, to clarify the arrangements for working jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen; thirdly, to clarify the commissioner's role in cross-border matters; and, finally, to provide for the commissioner to establish an internal complaints procedure, as a matter of good public administration.
	The rigorous debate that the Bill received in the other place, combined with the amendments that we have introduced to strengthen and clarify the legislation, have stood us in excellent stead for our debates in this House. Both sides of the House have adopted a positive and constructive approach to the Bill, and I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have participated.
	The Bill was debated thoroughly in Committee. The discussion covered a wide range of issues, often in some detail. There was a high degree of consensus, and I am grateful to hon. Members for the spirit in which the debate was conducted. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr Hywel Williams) for the professional way in which they chaired the Standing Committee. It is a testament to their wise and skilful chairmanship, and to the constructive and concise contributions by Committee members on both sides, that consideration of the Bill was concluded in less than two sittings.
	Opposition Members tabled a number of amendments, many of which were of a probing nature, where the intentions behind the Bill were explored toI believethe satisfaction of the Committee.

Roger Williams: The Minister knows that innovative Welsh legislation is sometimes imitated in EnglandI am thinking of the children's commissioner. However, I am not entirely light-hearted, because one of my constituents was removed to a home in England, and there were accusations that it might have been under duress. I have found it difficult to take that issue forward, and, as I understand it, the Welsh commissioner for older people would not be able to intervene on behalf of a Welsh person in English home.

Cheryl Gillan: I am pleased that we have reached Third Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for his kind comments on the conduct of its passage through the House, although I have to say that it has taken an awfully long time from start to finish. Its gestation period has been incredibleit started in another place on 25 May 2005 and it has taken some 14 months to reach this stage. That is an almost unprecedented length of time for an uncontentious Bill to take to go through this House. I know that the Secretary of State is somewhat preoccupied with getting Royal Assent for the Government of Wales Bill, but had he paid a little more attention to the passage of Bills such as this, he could perhaps have timetabled his business in the Wales Office in a more relaxed fashion that would have avoided him getting him so hysterical about the closing stages of the Government of Wales Bill. However, I am pleased that we have reached this stage with this Bill and that it will shortly go for Royal Assent.
	We live in an ageing society in which, for the first time, there are more people over 60 than children under 16. The diversity in our society is more clearly reflected in the older generation as, for example, the first generation of the immigrants of the '50s are making up greater proportions of the over-60s. The demands from our ageing society are constantly changing in terms of the quantity and quality of services required. The independence and well-being of these members of our society is of paramount importance as the increasing impact on public services and access to them present ever greater challenges to us throughout the country. As a country, we need to respond to those matters. That was succinctly put in the Audit Commission report, Older PeopleIndependence and Well-being: The Challenge for Public Services in 2004, which states:
	Either our countries will make decisions about adapting to our ageing societies, or these decisions will be made for us by the sheer force of demographics and economics. It becomes a question of whether we will manage change, or whether change will manage us.
	The Bill is an attempt to manage that change. As such, I am pleased to have joined Members from both sides of the House, and in the other place, in giving it a broad welcome. A commissioner for older people will be an important development for Wales.
	Wales has a growing concentration of older people compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Just over 22 per cent. of people in Walessome 600,000 peopleare over 60. Establishing the commissioner's office will play a significant role in ensuring that the concerns and needs of older people will be heard and recognised and that more can be achieved with regard to offering the opportunities, services and assistance that they require. The commissioner will play a vital role in increasing awareness of the needs of older people and in raising standards.
	It is clear that older people in Wales and across the UK face many difficulties poor housing, poor employment opportunities and insufficient transport services, to name but a few. There are also problems to do with poor nutrition and health and with access to care facilities. The commissioner offers an opportunity to make a difference and to improve lives across Wales, and that in itself must be welcomed. Indeed, it would be difficult not to welcome the provisions that will now go on to the statute book.
	However, I believe that it is important not to have excessive expectations of what the commissioner and the office of the commissioner can achieve. Furthermore, it is important to establish that the commissioner works alongside Assembly Members and does not simply get saddled with responsibilities that Ministers should discharge in the Assembly on behalf of the people of Wales.
	I am delighted that the commissioner will be available to champion the interests of older people, but that must be in addition to Ministers' roles in doing the same thing. As some of my amendments showed, I believe that we must ensure that the commissioner's duty includes keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of provision for disabled older people. It is important for the commissioner to have influence over the provisions available for disabled people, given that that can pose sizeable problems for older people. Disability clearly adds to the difficulties that an individual faces and it should therefore be in the commissioner's remit to tackle such issues. I was pleased with the Under-Secretary's response earlier in the debate.
	As has been discussed, the commissioner's functions will be confined to devolved matters. For me, that raises significant worries because it means that the commissioner cannot formally intervene in numerous aspects of life that specifically concern older people. Pensions and crime are key examples. The commissioner could not respond to the Turner commission's recommendations and will be cut off from parts of Government policy, the implementation of which causes some of the greatest difficulty for people throughout Wales.
	That poses the question whether the commissioner can tackle the issues and problems that most affect older people. I still have a fear that the limitations on the commissioner's general functions may seriously handicap attempts to discharge those functions as fully as possible and leave him or her toothless in some important matters. That is a significant weakness in the Bill.
	The Government should have considered formalising the route whereby the commissioner could approach UK Ministers. The Under-Secretary did not answer the question of how the commissioner could obtain genuine representational opportunities about non-devolved issues. As a result of that limitation, we must be realistic about what the commissioner can achieve.
	I continue to be worried about the way in which the commissioner will be funded. The Under-Secretary appreciates my reservations on the matter because the commissioner will be paid from ministerial budgets. I question whether it is right that an individual whose role is to scrutinise the actions of Assembly Ministers should have his or her salary paid by the people whom he or she could be examining. There is a question mark over the potential effect on the commissioner's independence and impartiality, which is of paramount importance.
	Having said that, I support the Bill, but not uncritically. I have sought to raise several questions that the measure poses. Some have been answered to my satisfaction but others remain unanswered. We must wait and see how, in its practical application, the office of the commissioner pans out.
	I am glad that we have had the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly but I am saddened that the Government of Wales Bill, when it receives Royal Assent, will deny us the opportunity for such scrutiny in future. I join the Under-Secretary in thanking all hon. Members who took part in scrutinising the Bill. I also thank those who chaired our proceedings. I thank the Under-Secretary for his courtesy in the letters that he sent me during the Bill's passage. I hope that the measure will be used to best effect and provide great benefits for the people of Wales.

Mark Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) signalled on Second Reading that the Liberal Democrats would support the Bill, and I can confirm that we continue to do so. This has been an invaluable opportunity to explore the ways in which the interests of older people are represented and protected in Wales. The figures speak volumes, with 20 per cent. of the population in Wales being over pensionable age, compared with the UK average of 18 per cent. In my own constituency, 25 per cent. of the people would fall within the remit of the commissioner. In that context, the establishment of that role is very welcome.
	The eager and enthusiastic language that we have used to describe the provisions has included terms such as pioneering, trailblazing and a champion, and I share the optimism and enthusiasm for the measure that many hon. Members have expressed. I also share some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has just expressed, however. There is real concern about the limitations of the commissioner's role, for example. In Committee, the Liberal Democrats argued the case for a strengthened role for the commissioner, and for his or her powers to extend far beyond those proposed in the Bill.
	In a Wales-only setting, the commissioner's powers come close to those that we would like to see. The commissioner will be able to investigate and make recommendations on the practices of local health boards, local authorities, further and higher education establishments, and many other important groups. He or she will also have the power to investigate individual cases in those areas. Although we would have given the commissioner greater powers of enforcement, the important point is that he will be able to interact directly with those bodies and to act as a real force for positive change, eliminating discrimination and malpractice.
	There are areas in which we would have strengthened the commissioner's powers further, even in a non-devolved setting. We tabled amendments to give the commissioner greater powers to stop elder abuse. We also argued that an investigated body should be required to give a response to the commissioner within six months. Our debates in Committee were quite repetitive, in that amendments kept being tabled on the same theme. Here we come to the crux of the debate. The theme was that the commissioner must be able to make a real difference to the lives of older people. To do that, that person will require a sufficiently broad remit, and sufficiently tough powers, in every area that affects those whose interests he looks after.
	The Bill is not particularly different from the one that we saw on Second Reading, in that it still outlines proposals for a commissioner with two dramatically different spheres of influence. The commissioner's powers in relation to reserved matters are markedly weaker, in that he or she will not have the power to require UK Government Departments to respond directly on non-devolved matters. Pensions, benefits and employment are all reserved matters, and we know from our surgeries that they are also some of the most important issues for our older people. Citizens Advice has told us that 80 per cent. of the cases that it deals with are connected with pensions and tax credits, yet the Bill still leaves the commissioner virtually impotent in those key areas.
	Any member of the public can write to a Minister, but the commissioner will be prohibited from doing so in his official capacity. If an older person comes to the commissioner to complain about the administration of his pension, for instance, the commissioner will be unable to make representations to the relevant Minister at UK level. Nor will he have the power to summon witnesses and examine documents from the Department for Work and Pensions or Jobcentre Plus. Any recommendations that he makes will have to be made in general terms, and will have to get through two sets of gatekeepers, the Assembly and the Secretary of State, who will have no statutory obligation to respond. The fundamental issue is the accessibility of the commissioner to our constituents. Sadly, the Bill fails on that level.
	The role of the children's commissioner, which was established through a laudable piece of legislation, has often been cited as an example in our discussions. When the children's commissioner appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 22 April 2004, he said:
	I do not have my strongest powers in the area of non-devolved matters. I cannot require documentation to be given to me. I cannot require the attendance of witnesses to give evidence on oath if I am conducting an inquiry. From the point of view of being the most powerful children's champion possible, it would be good from my perspective if the current Children Bill were amended to extend my powers over those matters.
	The experience of the children's commissioner speaks volumes about what we have been trying to achieve during the passage of the Bill, and we may have to return to those matters in future. I hope that some of them will be addressed in the memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the newly appointed commissioner. The appointment will be made soon, in 2007, which is to be welcomed.
	The commissioner's post will be the first of its kind in the world, and has huge potential to enrich people's lives. Despite my scepticismI do not want to be pessimisticI support what is in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats wish the commissioner every success, and we sincerely hope that, through the Bill, the Government have given him the tools that he needs to do an effective job and, above all, to provide the accessibility to respond to our constituents' demands.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Ian Pearson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on securing this Adjournment debate on the policy concerning radioactive waste management. The Government and the devolved Administrations are committed to finding a solution to the nuclear legacy. While others have talked about the problem, this Government are taking action.
	The Government have acted to deal with the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's older publicly owned civil nuclear sites, through the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in the Energy Act 2004. We are also conducting a review of low-level waste management policy, and are currently considering the responses to a consultation. We will publish a statement this autumn.
	The Government's Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme follows on from consultation in September 2001. It develops radioactive waste policy following a series of failed initiatives previously, and draws on the lessons that we have learned from that experience.
	The outcome of the consultation was the establishment of the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in the second half of 2003. My hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) both mentioned the role played by the committee, whose task was to provide a recommendation on the best option, or combination of options, for the long-term management of the UK's higher-activity radioactive waste. It was asked to produce its recommendations on the basis of a wide programme of public and stakeholder engagement, and also to sound out the views of the scientific and expert community.
	I believer that CoRWM has broken new ground in the open and transparent way in which it has conducted its affairs. It has engaged the public and stakeholders in the process, and it has fully considered the best scientific evidence. Its deliberative decision making has been carried out in open plenary sessionstherefore, quite literally, in public.
	There has been a wide range of scientific and other expert input to CoRWM's work. For example, last December more than 70 independent experts were involved in the assessment of CoRWM's short-listed options against its agreed assessment criteria, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chief scientist has set up an expert panel to advice, and provide support to, CoRWM. Those are only two examples of the expert input that has gone into the committee's work. Its interim recommendations have been well received by bodies such as the Royal Society and the Geological Society.
	CoRWM has held more than 30 open plenaries at various locations in the UK, in addition to round tables, citizen panels and a stakeholder forum. It also consulted more than 13,000 young people in Bedford and Luton as part of its schools project. I am particularly pleased about that, as it is important that the views of the young are reflected in reaching decisions about matters of such an important and long-lasting nature.
	Based on all that work and expert input and the results of its public and stakeholder engagement, CoRWM produced its interim recommendations in April. In them, it concluded that deep geological disposal is the best available approach to the long-term management of waste, that a programme of interim storage is also required and that the Government should explore the concept of partnership with local communities as part of any future facility-siting process. CoRWM put those draft recommendations out to consultation, and we understand that they have been well received.
	CoRWM's final report will be published at the end of July, in line with its published timetable. As hon. Members will recognise, as the report is not yet finalised I am not in a position to be able to respond to it. The Government will make a formal response to CoRWM when the House returns. We are keen to make progress on this matter, and will make the response as soon as practicable after the Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly reconvene.
	I look forward to receiving CoRWM's report, and in the meantime I would like to make several general observations in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. First, I must stress the importance of securing the confidence of both the public and stakeholder groups in any future programme. Whatever decisions are taken, I can say that the future programme will not be like previous failed programmes. We have learned from those failures. We believe that CoRWM has set the standards for openness and transparency in the way in which it has conducted its programme.
	In future, we must also win the confidence of any communities that might be willing to host waste management facilities. In that respect, I note the points made by my hon. Friend concerning the interests of Cumbria, and I can assure him that the Government have learned from mistakes made in the past, and plan to work constructively in partnership with all communities that have an interest in this matter.
	Public safety and environmental protectionboth now and for future generationswill be our utmost concern in taking forward the programme for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity wastes. The Government well understand the importance of independent scrutiny in respect of issues of nuclear power. In taking this programme forward, we will ensure that there is a robust regulatory regime and independent oversight. We will continue to look to the independent regulatory bodiesthe Health and Safety Executive, and the Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, or SEPA, in Scotlandto ensure the safety of people and the environment.
	It might be helpful if I outline to the House the process of regulation of safety for higher level radioactive wastes. The nuclear operators are required to demonstrate to the regulators that the risks to the public and the environment from their activities, including the management of radioactive waste, are reduced to as low as is reasonably practicable. In support of their safety cases for packaging and disposal of radioactive waste, the operators seek advice from Nirex.
	Nirex's role is, in support of Government policy, to develop and advise on safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable options for the long-term management of radioactive materials; as has been said, it has unique intellectual property. But it is the independent regulators who take decisions on the acceptability of waste conditioning and packaging safety cases that are submitted to them. The environment agencies and the Health and Safety Executive have teams that scrutinise Nirex's contribution to the safety case process. The independent regulators are responsible for applying and determining the statutory safety requirements of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
	 It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .[Tony Cunningham.]